# Murrays Standard Mixture Mellow?



## yvesmary (Jan 28, 2011)

Did Murrays really make Standard Mixture as Mellow instead of Mild?

I'm not allowed to post a link but the item # on eBay is 330525707546

I've never seen that before.


----------



## teedles915 (Jun 18, 2009)

http://www.smokingpipes.com/tobacco/by-maker/dunhill/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=261


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

yvesmary said:


> Did Murrays really make Standard Mixture as Mellow instead of Mild?
> 
> I'm not allowed to post a link but the item # on eBay is 330525707546
> 
> I've never seen that before.


Not to my knowledge.

The name change was made due to recent laws inacted over there which prohibit the use of words like mild and light in blend names. This came along several years after all of of the Dunhill production was being handled by Orlik. Also, if not non-existant, a stick on label would be a very rare very late production Murray's tin as well I believe. Pretty sure all the Murray blended tins would have the old style painted lids that look better. Most of the clues as to the vintage of these tins are on the back of the tin. They were a different tin then. Some of the old tins did make their way to Orlik though and in the U.S. the distributor's stick on label on the back told the rest of the story. Not sure if there ever was a way to 100% tell the tins blending location during the overlap of tin styles in the EU or not.

Link to auction:

SEALED TIN DUNHILL STANDARD MIXTURE PIPE TOBACCO 50gr - eBay (item 330525707546 end time Feb-07-11 12:27:06 PST)


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

I just went and looked at the auction some more and read the description again. My information I posted above may be wrong. I just know about the tins from 7 or 8 years ago when production switched to Orlik.

I didn't realize before that this one was from "_ancient times"_ which are probably a little farther back than I have any knowledge of. Geesh, these Ebay auctions aren't worth a damn for buying anything anymore, but they sure are a good source of amusement. :rotfl:


----------



## Nachman (Oct 16, 2010)

That is a recent tin for EU (Spanish) consumption.


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

I saw a new tin of "Mellow" for sale in Raleigh yesterday; don't ever recall seeing Dunhill branded like this before but, only being 59 and a relatively recent pipe convert, I can't swear what Murray's ever did back in the olden days before electricity and wooden chairs and salt water crocodiles and Justin Bieber and the internet and so on and so forth.

Perhaps some of the giga-super-mature among us like dmkerr and johnnyflake will tell more. I too was curious where that "Mellow" brand came from.


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

yvesmary said:


> Did Murrays really make Standard Mixture as Mellow instead of Mild?
> 
> I'm not allowed to post a link but the item # on eBay is 330525707546
> 
> I've never seen that before.


No, "mellow" is new to Orlik because they can no longer legally put "mild" on a tobacco product.

If you're interested in Murray's era Standard Mixture Mild, I'm selling a tin:
DUNHILL - SEALED MURRAYS ERA - Standard Mixture Mild! - eBay (item 250765527945 end time Feb-05-11 12:43:04 PST)


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Mac Baren did the same thing a few years ago for the same reason:

Mac Baren - Change of names


----------



## Natedogg (Jun 21, 2010)

Definitely a recent tin; older tins wouldn't have the usual "smoker's warning" on them.

What study showed that those warnings work anyway? You could put a picture of a tar truck pouring burning tar on a little bunny and we would still smoke it.


----------



## sounds7 (Mar 25, 2009)

You are correct sir. The labeled tins are Orlik in fact the early Orlik releases still used the painted tins of murrays, I believe they also put left over Murrays produced tobacco in those early tins. They later came up the the cheaper less appealing labeled tin. Then you have all the warning labels added and in this ebay case a foreign language. This is not a Murrays tin obviously.

entertainment indeed.



ultramag said:


> Not to my knowledge.
> 
> The name change was made due to recent laws inacted over there which prohibit the use of words like mild and light in blend names. This came along several years after all of of the Dunhill production was being handled by Orlik. Also, if not non-existant, a stick on label would be a very rare very late production Murray's tin as well I believe. Pretty sure all the Murray blended tins would have the old style painted lids that look better. Most of the clues as to the vintage of these tins are on the back of the tin. They were a different tin then. Some of the old tins did make their way to Orlik though and in the U.S. the distributor's stick on label on the back told the rest of the story. Not sure if there ever was a way to 100% tell the tins blending location during the overlap of tin styles in the EU or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## sounds7 (Mar 25, 2009)

This is the Murrays version. The real mcCoy.


----------



## Requiem (Dec 6, 2008)

Very curious, indeed. The e-bay tin reads "made in the UK" (which should mean Murray), but the mellow designation is more recent (which should mean Orlik).

The warning label is from Spain, where I usually buy several tobaccos. Although I never bought SM Mellow (but I've seen it there), I have several spanish tins of SM Medium... similar warning, "made in EU" on the label.


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Requiem said:


> Very curious, indeed. The e-bay tin reads "made in the UK" (which should mean Murray), but the mellow designation is more recent (which should mean Orlik).


I would almost guarantee that this is a fraud. I saved his image and zoomed way in in Photoshop. When you do so you can see that the periods that follow U and K are not as precisely positioned as they should be. Notice how the period following the U is a little to close to the K and how it is slightly too high from the baseline of the rest of the text and the U itself. It's a pretty good job, but not perfect. I'm betting he Photoshopped it and replaced EU with UK. Just my 2 cents. What boggles the mind was that he left that huge, recent warning label on the tin.


----------



## Requiem (Dec 6, 2008)

indigosmoke said:


> I would almost guarantee that this is a fraud. I saved his image and zoomed way in in Photoshop. When you do so you can see that the periods that follow U and K are not as precisely positioned as they should be. I'm betting he Photoshopped it and replaced EU with UK. Just my 2 cents. What boggles the mind was that he left that huge, recent warning label on the tin.


I don't think warning labels are that recent in Spain, at least in Portugal they've exist for about 10 years (and probably the same in Spain).
What's no doubt recent is the "mellow" instead of "mild" designation. I think it occured somewhere in late 2008...

Mellow + UK made = fraud ?? (I think so).


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Requiem said:


> I don't think warning labels are that recent in Spain, at least in Portugal they've exist for about 10 years (and probably the same in Spain).
> What's no doubt recent is the "mellow" instead of "mild" designation. I think it occured somewhere in late 2008...
> 
> Mellow + UK made = fraud ?? (I think so).


That's interesting. I did not know that. It's a shame that you've had to endure those labels ruining your tin art for all those years. I know I'm a bit weird in this respect, but one of the things I like about pipe tobacco is the tin art. I'm glad we don't have them here (yet.) You are certainly right though, no way it would say mellow. I'm almost certain the law saying you couldn't use the work mild was only enacted two to three years ago. And the more I look at the zoomed in image I'm sure the UK was Photoshopped. One can also see how the K ever so slightly canted downwards towards the right.


----------



## Requiem (Dec 6, 2008)

I'm now looking at one of my Standard Mixture (not mellow) tins bough in Spain in June 2009.

The warning labels size has been increasing with time. More recent tins from Spain bough in late 2010 show the warning taking 50% of the label.
However, the warning in my 2009 tins only takes 33% of the label.
I can't say how it was before.
However, a old Murray's tin with the warning taking 50% of the label in another reason to rate it suspect...

Also, the warning on my 2009 and 2010 tins (more than 40 tins, from various brands) are a little different.

- "Las Autoridades Sanitarias advierten:" - notice the capital A (in Autoridades), capital S in Sanitarias, and the : after advierten, which is missing on the suspect tin...

- "Fumar perjudica gravemente su salud y la de los que están su alrededor" - notice "están su alrededor" and not "están *a* su alrededor"

PS - this "*a* su alrededor" is on all the 2010 tins I own, but not on the 2009 tins.

My conclusion: the suspect tin is from 2010, the "U.K." being photoshoped, as Indigo states.


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

Looks like liar-liar, doesn't it?


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

Mister Moo said:


> Looks like liar-liar, doesn't it?


Definitely not a Murray tin. I don't know about the counterfit vs. just lying side of the argument though. I wish the seller would have included a pic of the back side of the tin. This counterfit BS is a side of these crappy stick on tin labels I hadn't even thought about. I don't know what I think about all that just yet. It sure will be nice if we have to start worrying about our pipe tobacco being fugazi. I can see it now...."Is this tin legit" threads popping up every other day in the Pipe Forum. :faint:


----------



## yvesmary (Jan 28, 2011)

indigosmoke said:


> That's interesting. I did not know that. It's a shame that you've had to endure those labels ruining your tin art for all those years. I know I'm a bit weird in this respect, but one of the things I like about pipe tobacco is the tin art. I'm glad we don't have them here (yet.) You are certainly right though, no way it would say mellow. I'm almost certain the law saying you couldn't use the work mild was only enacted two to three years ago. And the more I look at the zoomed in image I'm sure the UK was Photoshopped. One can also see how the K ever so slightly canted downwards towards the right.


I've been doing a little digging myself.

The first country to ban Light and Mild was Brazil in Jan 2001. Europe followed about 2003. Murrays closed in late 2004 and production shifted to Orlik in 2005. So it appears Murrays didn't waste any time changing from Mild to Mellow.

It took Orlik until the summer of 2007 to use up all the Murrays stuff and that's when they actually started blending it themselves.

I just thought it was odd that nobody seems to have seen one like it with all the Dunhills that have been sold on eBay.


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

yvesmary said:


> I've been doing a little digging myself.
> 
> The first country to ban Light and Mild was Brazil in Jan 2001. Europe followed about 2003. Murrays closed in late 2004 and production shifted to Orlik in 2005. So it appears Murrays didn't waste any time changing from Mild to Mellow.
> 
> ...


So, if I understand you correctly, your saying that you believe this is an authentic Murray's tin? Also, where did you come up with the information in the sentence I bolded?


----------



## bierundtabak (Nov 15, 2010)

Does anybody know the specific difference between Murray and Orlik. I can def. tell one from the other, but is it like two completely diff. blends or just like a subtle diff. between the two.


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

bierundtabak said:


> Does anybody know the specific difference between Murray and Orlik. I can def. tell one from the other, but is it like two completely diff. blends or just like a subtle diff. between the two.


Well, people that have had both are all over the map (better/same/worse). But there really isn't a way to know just how different they are. 
Are the proportions of the component tobaccos the same? Are the same sources or varieties of the component tobaccos used? Is the humidficication method and amount the same? Etc. The answer to all those is obviously NO. Doesn't mean Orlik isn't good, but to expect them to match the Murrays blends is unrealistic.


----------



## yvesmary (Jan 28, 2011)

ultramag said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, your saying that you believe this is an authentic Murray's tin? Also, where did you come up with the information in the sentence I bolded?


I have a notebook I keep information about blends and manufacturers.

The information you bolded came from the Ottawa Pipe Club website. As I said before I'm not allowed to post links but the URL is

It starts with http(colon)(slash)(slash)

homepage(dot)mac(dot)com(slash)ericmelby(slash)PipeGroup(slash)odyssey
(dot)htm

Sorry for the convoluted way to give you the link but it wouldn't allow me to do it any other way.

I hope it works. There are some interesting articles there.


----------



## yvesmary (Jan 28, 2011)

To ChronoB

Thanks for the link to your Dunhill tin but unfortunately you don't ship to Canada.


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

yvesmary said:


> I have a notebook I keep information about blends and manufacturers.
> 
> The information you bolded came from the Ottawa Pipe Club website. As I said before I'm not allowed to post links but the URL is
> 
> ...


That's an awesome link. One of the most complete and accurate (according to what I _think_ myself and others have figured out by going through tins in personal collections that we know the purchase dates and sources of) about what Dunhill tins are Murray tins and those that are Orlik. It's one of those things that will always contain a grey area due to how the swap was handled. When they send the tobaccos and tins to Orlik, as virtually all sources report they did, there will most definitely be an overlap which causes uncertainty. There also most certainly has to be a difference in these blends to someone with an exceptional palate I would think. Even the un-tinned Murray blended tobacco that made the trip to Denmark would've been subject to a different environment that would have to alter it. I don't think that most of us, myself included, could tell much difference if put to the test blind. The article is correct in that basically the day this info hit the pipe forums many felt that Dunhill tobacco was "no good" anymore. If you talk to many of the old timers that enjoyed the Dunhill blended tobacco they'll tell you that the Murray blended was inferior. Who knows? I suspect that they're all right to a point. I imagine as sources of component tobaccos changed and bigger businesses made the blending more automated and less personal quality has fell off somewhat through the years. Just speculation on my part. It's also an impossible comparison to compare today's Orlik stuff to Murray tins with 5+ years age, much less Dunhill tins with 30+ years on them. It's just gonna be different due to the aging if nothing else IMO.

To bring this all back around to the tin that started this thread, I still feel it most likely isn't a Murray blended tin. I think the label is too modern and it's just too new for Murray's tobacco to have lasted that long in the Orlik plant. I admit no one can be certain because of the grey area mentioned above. There was for sure a time when it's anyone's guess though and perhaps this one is from that time. I know if I thought I needed Murray's I wouldn't be laying out the big bucks for this one. Just too many things against it IMO with the information I have at hand at the moment.

I'll ask once more for curiousity's sake.....do you believe this to be a Murray's tin from information you have in your sources, and if so, why? Half of what I've come to rely on for determining Murray tobacco in the U.S. would not even exist on this tin. That is the sticker placed on the backside by the U.S. importer. The other is the shape of the bottom half of the tin. As stated in the article you linked, the tins were changed by Orlik and the shape is noticeably different on the bottom of the bottom half. I feel the distribution sticker is the most sure-fire way to know which blender you have. I think there was likely some Murray tobacco in the system after the tins changed and and the distributor did as well, but am fairly confident that the tobaccos that hit here before those changes (primarily distributorship) were Murray blended. :2

Here is the link for those interested. It's well worth the read. I guess if this interests you it is anyway. Lot's of good, accurate information here gathered into one spot for those of you with an interest who weren't around during all this happening the last few years.

Ottawa Pipe Club


----------



## Requiem (Dec 6, 2008)

I asked the ebay seller about it, who sent me the following message:

_Hello sir,
Yes this tin was bought in 2010 but from the old stocks of my confidence tobbaconist.
I put new pictures were you can read the barcode (ean) and you can verify (for instance, at Search by barcode | GEPIR | Services | GS1 - The global language of business) that this tin comes from BAT who, as you know, in 2005 buyed Murray's and Sons company.
Thank you for your interest._


----------



## Firedawg (Nov 8, 2010)

In the last year he has sold a few tins of dunhill and all POS+ feedback. Shouldnt we give this some credit at least. I have to admit though you gents are great at fact finding and I love learning from all of you. Now the big question! Is there really that much difference in the old and new or is it just attachment to the idea. Would most of you past a taste test in a way between the 2? Kind of like the old Pepsi Challenge...


----------



## Nachman (Oct 16, 2010)

Just my 2 pence worth. I am a long time smoker of Dunhill tobaccos and could not see much difference in Murray's and Orlik's renditions. There was a noticable difference from the days when Dunhill blended the tobacco themselves. When you opened a Dunhill tim many years ago the paper pleated liner would be stained brown from the nicely fermented tobacco and the taste reflected the aging even though those were not old tins. I wouldn't pay more for a Murray's tin than I would for a well aged Orlik tin because I couldn't taste the difference. It may be my palatte is not well enough developed, but why pay for something you can't taste. I'm not in to bragging rights. i'm just glad we have the Dunhills we can get at a reasonable price.


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

Requiem said:


> I asked the ebay seller about it, who sent me the following message:
> 
> _Hello sir,_
> _Yes this tin was bought in 2010 but from the old stocks of my confidence tobbaconist._
> ...


I was hoping someone would contact the seller. That is the new Orlik tin, and what I would bet anything is the European version of the newer EU sticker Orlik applies, and a very suspicious story from a B&M all rolled into one IMO. You definitely know more about the tins from over there Gustavo. Has to be Orlik right? Unkown and highly suspect of being Orlik at best?



Firedawg said:


> In the last year he has sold a few tins of dunhill and all POS+ feedback. Shouldnt we give this some credit at least. I have to admit though you gents are great at fact finding and I love learning from all of you. Now the big question! Is there really that much difference in the old and new or is it just attachment to the idea. Would most of you past a taste test in a way between the 2? Kind of like the old Pepsi Challenge...


It's just all about the learning and sharing FD. I have no desire to credit or discredit this guy. I don't want the tin at the opening $15 bid, much less what it's probably gonna sell for. It is kind of dis-heartening to see auctions like this posted that are most likely incorrectly listed. It's a shame to see someone taken advantage of, but I guess when they want to jump in head first and spend ten times as fast as they're learning maybe a hard lesson early is the best thing. :hmm:

As for the difference in the blenders I have a feeling it would be an embarrassment to a lot of people who can tell and don't like Orlik if they ever had to face the "Dunhill Challenge". I also believe there are probably some who can tell with some of the blends. They've got to be a little different at the least because sources of components and atmosphere have changed. All those things will make a difference. I personally haven't smoked any Orlik to speak of. All my favorite Dunhill's remain either discontinued or at least unavailable in the U.S.. What I've had out of the new stuff was Dunhill Deluxe Navy Rolls. It is either way off, needs to age, or I have a completely different memory of the old stuff than is right. I've got one old Murray tin of them left to compare one of these days.


----------



## yvesmary (Jan 28, 2011)

Thanks Chad for putting the link for the Ottawa Pipe Club.

I want to believe the seller. It seems like a lot of work to fake it for the few dollars involved.

I've never had the original Dunhills or the Murrays so I can't comment on the taste. But I've just opened a new London Mixture and Standard Mixture. Both look identical, dark brown, brown and lots of yellow brown pieces, same moisture level. More importantly they taste great and I can't taste any difference between the two. I think they will age beautifully.

I will be smoking these regularly and can't see paying any premiums for Murray tins.


----------



## Requiem (Dec 6, 2008)

Cammon, I can't even imagine any kind of wierd story that would back that tin as legit...
Everything, except the "made in UK" mention, looks like a Orlik made in 2010 tin.

The term "mellow" is consistent with Orlik made.
The warning label (the entire front label design, actually) is consistent with 2010.
The back label reads "made in EU" 
how the hell can the front label read "made in UK"???

Maybe the ebay seller was dooped himself...


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

yvesmary said:


> Thanks Chad for putting the link for the Ottawa Pipe Club.
> 
> I want to believe the seller. It seems like a lot of work to fake it for the few dollars involved.
> 
> ...


No problem adding the link. It was a very good one and needed to be here. I've done some more reading and looking around on that site today and it sure is a good one. Wish they had even more info posted. I don't see Murray tins being worth nearly the money they bring now either. I think a slight increase due to age more than any difference in product is acceptable and makes sense. That's the main reason I learned so much about the Murray's tins several years ago was so I could pick the B&M's over and be sure if I was buying I was buying the older tins out of the available stock. The only exception may be the ones that either aren't made or aren't distributed to the U.S. anymore IMO.



Requiem said:


> Maybe the ebay seller was dooped himself...


This is what I think after reading the response to your email and he has answered a question/accusation sent to him within the listing as well. I think the seller most likely believes what he is saying and has been mislead by the B&M he refrences buying the tin from. With a few notable exceptions most the guys working in these places don't really know squat about the products they're pushing. At least, that seems to be the case in the U.S.

Anybody with new tins of Dunhill in the U.S. able to enlighten as to what they say on the front for "Made in" now. I've not paid any attention to them really yet. Unless Elizabethan Mixture shows up again I'll be able to control myself over the big return of Dunhill. Glad to see it back because it's good for the community as a whole though and gives a lot of folks a chance at trying something new.


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

ultramag said:


> I don't see Murray tins being worth nearly the money they bring now either. I think a slight increase due to age more than any difference in product is acceptable and makes sense.


I agree. I've seen Murray's tins going for outrageous prices. That's why on my auction (shameless plug alert!) I put an opening bid of $20, with a buy-it-now of $35 (DUNHILL - SEALED MURRAYS ERA - Standard Mixture Mild! - eBay (item 250765527945 end time Feb-05-11 12:43:04 PST)). If people want to drive up the price beyond that they're welcome to, but I think it had better be something pretty rare to command much more than that, like a royal warrant era Dunhill tin from the 80s or earlier.


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

Requiem said:


> Very curious, indeed. The e-bay tin reads "made in the UK" (which should mean Murray), but the mellow designation is more recent (which should mean Orlik).
> 
> The warning label is from Spain, where I usually buy several tobaccos. Although I never bought SM Mellow (but I've seen it there), I have several spanish tins of SM Medium... similar warning, "made in EU" on the label.


the packing code on the back of the tin was 2006.


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

Mister Moo said:


> the packing code on the back of the tin was 2006.


I assume you're referring to the small numbers to the right of the bar code?


----------



## Requiem (Dec 6, 2008)

I wrote the seller again:

"Dear sir,

thank you for your reply.
However, I'm even more confused now...
the front label reads "manufactured in the UK"
while the back label reads "manufactured in EU"
It honestly doesn't seem like a Murray's tin.
Best regards"

----------
his answer:

_"Hello sir,
You're right, I have not seen the small letter where says Manufactured in the EU.
I prefers to stop the auction, because I not yet sure about the article... But the EAN identifier said it was made by Bat...
Thank you for your kindness"_

ps- do you boys think I should invite him over here? He seems to be in good faith, although if he's not we could just be suplying information to a bad seller...


----------



## owaindav (Mar 7, 2010)

Absolutely Gustavo. I've been lurking this thread and it seems the guy has just been mislead. 

I just looked at my tin of Standard Medium. It has the old Murray front and says U.K. on the front but on the back it says EU. Very interesting. I bought this at a B&M last year before it was available again in the US. It was old and dusty. There were 2 tins of Medium and one of Mild.

So I'm figuring mine is probably tinned by Orlik with the leftover tins from the move from Murrays. This guy may have one of the Orlik tins and may still have Murrays tobacco that was left over. This is all conjecture after reading the article that Chad posted from that pipe club. Great article BTW.


----------



## Requiem (Dec 6, 2008)

owaindav said:


> .
> 
> I just looked at my tin of Standard Medium. *It has the old Murray front and says U.K. on the front but on the back it says EU*. Very interesting. I bought this at a B&M last year before it was available again in the US. It was old and dusty. There were 2 tins of Medium and one of Mild.
> 
> So I'm figuring mine is probably tinned by Orlik with the leftover tins from the move from Murrays. This guy may have one of the Orlik tins and may still have Murrays tobacco that was left over. This is all conjecture after reading the article that Chad posted from that pipe club. Great article BTW.


That's very interesting, Dave. That's the first indication the seller's tin may be legit.

Is your tin Standard Mixture Medium, or just Standard Mixture?

Could the top lids be old ones from Murray and the bottom parts be already new ones, from Orlik???


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Perhaps it's Dunhill era leaf with the top half of the Orlik tin and the bottom half of the Murray's tin with a product label created by a Yogoslavian teen age girl as part of a school project with a warning label from Spain's colony on Mars sold to a time traveller from ancient Rome by a B&M in Roswell, NM that is run by aliens. At least that's what I'm thinking makes as much sense as anything else. If he asks for payment in aureus and denarius my suspicions will be confirmed. Seriously, this has gotten ridiculous.


----------



## owaindav (Mar 7, 2010)

Here's pics of the front and back of my Standard and my 965. My cellar says the 965 is 3 years old.



























You be the judge.


----------



## sounds7 (Mar 25, 2009)

owaindav said:


> Here's pics of the front and back of my Standard and my 965. My cellar says the 965 is 3 years old.
> 
> View attachment 33721
> View attachment 33720
> ...


I think the Standard mixture that you picture here with the painted Tin is Orlik using Murrays leftovers which to me is Murrays. The 965 with the Sticker is Orlik. Did Murays ever use a stickered tin? I dont think so.


----------



## yvesmary (Jan 28, 2011)

I think this got to be an interesting thread.

The history and evolution of pipe tobacco manufacturers and distributors make a fascinating story. Like most collectibles there are always oddballs that skew our attempts at an orderly list.

Thank you all for your replies.


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

owaindav said:


> This is all conjecture after reading the article that Chad posted from that pipe club. Great article BTW.


New guy gets credit for the linky. I just posted it in link form for him because he can't. I wish I had come up with something that organized, years ago actually. :banghead:



Requiem said:


> Could the top lids be old ones from Murray and the bottom parts be already new ones, from Orlik???


That would be my guess. The way the tins I have came when compared with dates and the stickers on the back I'm pretty sure Orlik never made/had made painted lids. I think they immediately went the cheap and less classy route of stick-ons. Dave's bottoms are the the new Orlik style.



indigosmoke said:


> Perhaps it's Dunhill era leaf with the top half of the Orlik tin and the bottom half of the Murray's tin with a product label created by a Yogoslavian teen age girl as part of a school project with a warning label from Spain's colony on Mars sold to a time traveller from ancient Rome by a B&M in Roswell, NM that is run by aliens. At least that's what I'm thinking makes as much sense as anything else. If he asks for payment in aureus and denarius my suspicions will be confirmed. Seriously, this has gotten ridiculous.


Nope, definitely an Orlik bottom. Other than that I'm pretty sure this is exactly the way this went down. :boink: :biggrin:



owaindav said:


> Here's pics of the front and back of my Standard and my 965. My cellar says the 965 is 3 years old.
> 
> View attachment 33721
> View attachment 33720
> ...


Both tinned by or shipped at least from Orlik. Contents unkown at best. Since they both have Orlik bottoms and the large round sticker that covers the whole bottom they would be Orlik tins in my book. I would also guess that the standard tin wasn't sent to Orlik as a sealed tin because of the Orlik bottom. The MM965 I would highly suspect as Orlik mainly because it has no attributes found on a Murray tin at all. I would also think that the Murray blended and un-tinned contents of the big three Dunhill blends (MM965, NightCap, and Early Morning Pipe) would have ran out rather quickly.



sounds7 said:


> Did Murays ever use a stickered tin? I dont think so.


I don't think so either. If this keeps going I'm going to have to unpack my cabinets until I reach the Dunhill and see what I've got. I'd really like to take some pics of the known Murray tins to include in this thread, but they are buried way up on the top shelf, back right corner of my cabinets taking the loooooong sleep. It would be quite the chore to get to them and then pack everything away again.


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

ultramag said:


> I assume you're referring to the small numbers to the right of the bar code?


Yes - it was marked "06....." All y'all know about Dunhill date codes, right?



indigosmoke said:


> ...Seriously, this has gotten ridiculous.


It's the cigar smoker in us. Glass top or all wooden box? Label with raised gold bumps or flat yellow dots? "Avocado" green cello or "celery" green cello? Box code PFF*B*7 or PFF*8*7? Whoooooaaaa Nellie! You know what THAT means, right?!

Personally, I find this producer-transition hairsplitting unusual*, informative and helpful, Johnno. At the very least it produced an interesting web site previously unknown to me. Also, these details are what decides, down the road, if something is a $15 tin or a $150 tin. Wish all the label and code info on Dunhill and Balkan Sobranie products was all in one place.

With UK on front, EU on the back and a 2006 can code it sounds like a leftover Murray lid with nobody-knows-what packed inside. Has anyone here known of an auction of pipe tobacco with a fake label before? This would be a first in my experience. Facts misrepresented, yes. Fake label, no.

*the one who asked the question (top post) also answered the question.


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Moo,

I didn't mean it was ridiculous that you all found this interesting, whatever floats your boat. I meant it was ridiculous that it is this difficult to determine when a tin was made. 

As for collectability, etc, to be honest having tried a 25 year old sample of EMP (thanks Chad) I didn't find much, if any, difference between that and the current EMP. I even figured I'd make a YT video on the differences between the two before I tried it, because with the prices the Murray production Dunhill goes for on eBay I figured there had to be a major difference. In the event, as there really was none, it would have been a very short video so it never got made. I was surprised that even the age alone hadn't changed it more. It may be different for other Dunhills, but I'll just stick with the current production. Let others spend their money as they wish, of course. If I decide to buy expensive eBay tobacco it will be Edgeworth (thanks to Chad again for getting me hooked on that stuff.)


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

indigosmoke said:


> Moo,
> 
> I didn't mean it was ridiculous that you all found this interesting, whatever floats your boat. I meant it was ridiculous that it is this difficult to determine when a tin was made.
> 
> As for collectability, etc, to be honest having tried a 25 year old sample of EMP (thanks Chad) I didn't find much, if any, difference between that and the current EMP. I even figured I'd make a YT video on the differences between the two before I tried it, because with the prices the Murray production Dunhill goes for on eBay I figured there had to be a major difference. In the event, as there really was none, it would have been a very short video so it never got made. I was surprised that even the age alone hadn't changed it more. It may be different for other Dunhills, but I'll just stick with the current production. Let others spend their money as they wish, of course. If I decide to buy expensive eBay tobacco it will be Edgeworth (thanks to Chad again for getting me hooked on that stuff.)


A while back I scored a tin of royal warrant era Standard Mixture Medium (i.e. tinned some time in the eighties) for $35. I was _extremely_ fortunate to get it for that price, but even that was almost too much for me. I really wanted to try a "vintage" tobacco, though.

Now, I haven't had late era Murray's or Orlik version to which I can compare it, but as a fan of english style blends I can say it might have been the best I've ever smoked. It was everything you would expect a very well aged, storied blend of old to be.

That being said, I would never have paid more than I did for it. And concerning the discussion at hand, I certainly wouldn't be so overly concerned about whether a tin is later Murray's era or early Orlik era. If you really want Murray's era Dunhill there are still plenty to be had that can be readily identified.


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

Mister Moo said:


> Yes - it was marked "06....." All y'all know about Dunhill date codes, right?
> 
> With UK on front, EU on the back and a 2006 can code it sounds like a leftover Murray lid with nobody-knows-what packed inside. Has anyone here known of an auction of pipe tobacco with a fake label before? This would be a first in my experience. Facts misrepresented, yes. Fake label, no.


I actually know little to nothing about the newer Orlik Dunhill. When the seller posted those pics of the back of the tin I looked at those numbers and wondered if they held the same info as Escudo tins. I decided with what I know about the U.S. tins plus Gustavo's input relating to his tins and warning labels over there that there was no way this was an '06 tin and dismissed them. I've not heard any discussion about being able to date the Orlik tins this way, but if you say it works that's good enough for me. Solid, tested, tried, and true......so sayeth the Moo???

I've never heard of anything being faked in the pipe tobacco world either. I'd not really thought about it until the guys were playing with that picture.


----------



## Mister Moo (Sep 8, 2005)

ultramag said:


> ...I've not heard any discussion about being able to date the Orlik tins this way, but if you say it works that's good enough for me. Solid, tested, tried, and true......so sayeth the Moo???


Honestly, Chaddle, I never paid much attention to it one way or the other but, in my basement, I'm finding Dunhill tins either inkdot- or paper label coded on the back. Inked are consistent with year (XX) followed by day (XXX) followed by single digit lot (X); labeled, I imagine, are consistent with year (XX), day (XXX) and five digit lot or other production code(s) (XXXXX).

There appears to have been an overlapping transition around 2005 from inked steel to paper label coding.

(Around the same time the lower half of the tin changed from a two-step inward draw on the press to a deep outwardly drawn ridge - I assume this was done so the tins would stack better on shelves if not to make them more rigid.)


----------

